[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we have the chunks only hold one frame and avoid much of the
compaction work? If we return to the inderict access mechanism, we
can switch register frames by changing one pointer. But if we keep
the one frame per chunk, we do not need to compact frames, standard
DOD
Leo~
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:50:22 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until around Parrot 0.0.3 there were chunked stacks *with* an
> indirection for the register frame pointers. During development of the
> JIT system these indirections got dr
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All~
> This feels similar in spirit to the old framestacks that we used to
> have. I throught that we moved away from those to single frame things
> so that we did not have to perform special logic around continuations.
> I would feel more comfortable if
All~
This feels similar in spirit to the old framestacks that we used to
have. I throught that we moved away from those to single frame things
so that we did not have to perform special logic around continuations.
I would feel more comfortable if someone explained both the initial
motivation of
This is a summary of a private mail conversation between Leo and myself.
No, it didn't start by me forgetting to fix Reply-To when trying to
post follow-up on the list. ;)
Essentially we whipped up a GC scheme for collecting the register stacks
that doesn't make call/cc-using code, well, unusab
